zlacker

>>topshe+(OP)
If this isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back, there is never going to be one.

Google needs to be broken up.

They own the browser market. They own the web (through Adwords). They own Search. They own mobile. They own most of the video sharing market with 2.5 billion monthly annual users. They own a good chunk of email with 1.2 billion monthly annual users.

They have amassed an incomprehensible amount of power and influence over humanity and they have proven repeatedly that they are willing to use that power to the detriment of humanity and to entrench themselves further.

Google needs to be broken up.

>>mozbal+O4
Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here?

Chrome and Android are open source, and there are several forks of both thriving in the ecosystem. Yeah it would be cool if there was a decent open source alternative to GMail and Drive, but no one else seems to have figured out how to get the incentives right for something like that.

>>px43+z6
Google broke itself up in 2015. What are you even asking for here?

No, it didn't, it restructured itself into Alphabet, with many subsidiaries. But, all the core businesses are still under that umbrella organization, with most web-related businesses remaining inside the current Google entity.

A forced divestment of the browser business might help. Same for the productivity products.

>>alista+W7
What browser “business”? Chrome makes no money. Don’t you think they are going to fund themselves the same way that Firefox does - via Google ads?

No one has paid for a browser in almost 3 decades and even then few did.

>>scarfa+R8
I don't think you understand what a business is. Google pays Firefox a lot of money to be the default search which means there is a lot of money in browsers. Google Search conceptually pays Google Chrome to be the default Search engine on Chrome. Except since they're both under the same company they will never take an outside offer which is why it's a monopoly. No different from any other vertically integrated company.

>>marcin+1c
I understand that perfectly, how do you think the theoretical Chrome business would make money?

>>scarfa+Eh
The same way the non-theoretical Firefox business makes money.

edit: Safari as well.

>>marcin+nm
By showing ads from the “AdSense Company” and sending your personal information to them?

Meet the new boss…

>>scarfa+7p
Sure, but on the positive side, the Chrome Company has its own incentives.

Today, Google can provide Chrome as a loss-leader, making up for the "free" browser with ad revenue.

The new Chrome Company can't operate that way. It needs to make money on its own. Perhaps MS Bing offers more money. Or they build their own ad system. Or pivot into some other business area.

Anyway, I don't think anybody is arguing Google/Alphabet must be broken up, only that it's a tool that's available in the US, should we (society) decide other regulation is insufficient.

>>alista+Pz
> Perhaps MS Bing offers more money.

> Or they build their own ad system.

And we still are being tracked by BigTech with the same business model that people object when Google does it.

> Or pivot into some other business area.

And what other method do you suggest for funding besides ads or people paying for the browser? The second option has never been a long term successful business for browsers?